ideas was Re: [CUWiN] Activity?

[Tom Sparks]

I am going to use the open-mesh.com nodes
I am looking at have a
video sharing website 
(Creative commons/other open license, high quality
download members
only)
photo sharing website
(something like flickr, Creative commons/other open
license),
music sharing website (something like Jamendo, may
even mirror some
Jamendo music)

streaming radio (jukebox, music from the music sharing
website, live
on-site streaming, DJing (on-site live, prearranged
music and call-in
request))
streaming TV (video jukebox, videos from the video
sharing website, live
on-site streaming, studio shows (news))

three levels of access
level 1: visitor/traveller
can access every website no membership to any website
can upload videos/music (file must be approved by
admins)
level 2: node owners
every person living under one roof/house size block of
land
get membership to every website
level 3: admin (must own a node)
admin access to every website, only one person
per-location

On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:34 +0200, Sven-Ola Tücke
wrote: 
> Hey,
> 
> what they have in common (muniwireless, meraki,
open-mesh.com etc) is, that 
> they tend to make the network itself a private/owned
resource. Something an 
> individual or an group of people owns. Hence they
fail for the critical 
> mission: to build "street like" infrastructure,
where you can reach 
> different "stores" to buy your services from
whatever entitity (if it's not 
> entirely free already). Example: there should be
more than one host offering 
> OpenVPN for international connections or so.
> 
> Typical keywords in "support queries" which reach my
mail account from time to 
> time: We need to "control", "register", "encrypt".
They cannot rely on or do 
> not understand concepts like "sharing", "commons",
"community". And - e.g.. 
> the merkaki folks simply charge too much for their
registration 
> service/software ;-)
> 
> Having such closed concepts in mind, it is _not_
easy for any other individual 
> to jump in and join. Hence you will fail to reach
the critial user count nor 
> do you bind the necessary altruism - wich _is_ out
there. What's also sad: 
> this uses up the spectrum originally meant to be
free and commons. 
> 
> There are examples of running open meshes. I live in
one called freifunk and I 
> dont pay for inet currently (while I need to do some
work to get that thing 
> up and running - but that's another story). And yes
- there are plenty of 
> in-between implementations (in-between: closed and
open) as this is real 
> live - but you need to start with a more extreme
position otherwise you have 
> nothing for later negotiations <ggg>
> 
> // Sven-Ola
> 
> Am Mittwoch 06 August 2008 03:29:43 schrieb Tom
Sparks:
> [snip]
> >
> > yea :)
> > someone with my thinking
> > I am proposing something like this to my
> > local/regional council :)
> >
> > Why should I pay AU$40 (and have a 12/36 months
> > contract) to get on the
> > Internet to view the local/regional websites for
my
> > area?
> >
> > I still think there needs to be a cost if you are
> > accessing
> > international websites
> _______________________________________________
> CU-Wireless mailing list
> CU-Wireless at lists.cuwireless.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
> Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org
> 



      Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search